Scientists who believed in God

In my opinion, it is a great oversimplification to say that the faith of these men was merely the product of the “time” or “culture” they lived in. It does not do them justice. And it does not do You justice. These men were as real and as complex as you and me. Is that really all there is to You? Are You only a mindless product of the culture around You? Aren’t You able to choose a path that is counter to your “time” and “culture”? I thought Darwin did exactly that. If You, like these men, are only a product of your “time” then perhaps Your beliefs about God, whatever they are, are only the result of this current "time". We all are and should be influenced by the predominate views of our time. But, we need not be totally controlled by them. Darwin should teach you that!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan

So you know for sure that no-one questioned creationism, everybody just conformed to the governments/churches wishes? Because this is the standard of evidence you would need to give credence to your point, otherwise i can only accept it as your opinion which i do not currently agree with.
Hmm, you seem to think I think that everyone believed blindly in their respective religion. To an extent I do. Obviously people questioned their faith (I was always wanting to know how things worked, questioned why things were the way they were, more so than anyone else in my small primary school), but only points of it- where do you think all these different sects in christianity alone stem from. People were able to come to different interpretations over what they thought they knew, but the conclusion that a god existed was probably believed by the majority. People commonly accepted the fact the earth was flat. You cannot disagree with this. Why would it be any different over something like religion?

But you will always find such diversity in human society, and i doubt that time can have an effect on that.
Time maybe not. An accumulation of knowledge over an extended amount of time remove misunderstandings held by common perception to be the truth. Flat earth my example again.

And ignorance is bliss, yeah?
Ignorance of what? I was stating the the inate belief of god doesn't exist in us. Objectively religion is a hyped up fairy tale following the lines of mythological stories that have dominated social beliefs all throughout humanities time.

Ignorance of something to me means you're missing out on something important or you're willfully ignoring it. I don't seem to be missing out on anything when it comes to religion, why would I want to instill prejudice and ignorance into my mind by coming to believe something that multiplies human weaknesses?

But that is not religion, that is something to make you feel good. It is always in the interest of ruling powers to give some kind of hope to the masses, a kind of carrot waving. This helps the masses in general, keep some kind of order. Eventually these ruling power will leave their formula of religion behind and jump to the next ship, simply because the old formula will not be accepted by the masses. But this i do not regard as religion, but a mental construct. W
First you disagree then you agree. Religion was hegemony. It was the means of social control. However, at the same time it was the silver lining to all those many people who had hard lives. The thought of something better is seductive. I do not wonder at why religion has perpetuated in so many forms, becoming more complex over time to keep up with mans evolving knowledge of what's going on around him. I think it is obvious why it has. It is just the fact the we are now becoming comfortable with the amount of knowledge we have and the fact that we don't have to explain things we don't understand doesn't leave us vulnerable. I think it is a great crime to remove the teaching of evolution from schools. It is a step backwards.

I'm gonna stop because this is becoming useless. I am too tired to form my thoughts into anything coherently effective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Raithere,

Nowhere did Einstein ever state that he believed Jesus was God or the son of God.

Nowhere have i said that he did.

In fact, he repeatedly stated that he did not believe in a personal God which would make him a Deist at most and he specifically stated that a Jesuit would consider him an atheist.

You're missing the point.

All your quote seems to indicate is that he believed Jesus was a real person. Like many people he may have considered Jesus to have been a wise teacher and moralist but an otherwise entirely normal and non-divine person.

The quote;

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

The personality of Jesus, as depicted in the "Gospels" was his devotion to God. Within all his teachings, God is at the centre. Don't you think that if Einstein was a deist he would have been more specific as to the aspect of Jesus' personality which fills him with so much awe and respect.
What is "the myth?"
Is it that the idea of a god, is nothing more than a comfort blanky (as put by atheroy), that God is just a figment of primitive man's imagination, that God is just a mental construct and no more real than the toothfairy???
So doesn't Einstein give credit to the gospel and Jesus by stating that "no myth is filled with such life?

shrubby pegasus,

i dont care if einstein or anyother great scientist believed in any type of god. it is totally a moot point. einstein didnt believe in quantum mechanics either, does that mean QM cannot be real even though we hae insurmountable evidence it is? those scientists lived in a different period than we do, religious belief is very much a result of cultural exposure

I apreciate your honesty.

JustARide,

As for his quote about Jesus -- it should be noted that admiring a person or a story does not connote belief in the all the religious baggage attached to him/it.

But that has nothing to do with the content of his quote. To prove that Einstein did not believe in God, you have to dismantle that quote, because that quote shows that he had maximum respect for Jesus and the gospels, and that he believes that neither is a myth.
And yet he is a brilliant scientist with a brilliant mind.

ConsequentAtheist,

I take issue with the disingenuous selectivity of your quotes.

I'm sorry that you think my choice of quotes as disingenuous, but your personal opinions of me must take a back seat, because that is the quote i have chosen. The quote is genuine, and is obvious to any sober person that he has a belief in God, despite the insistense of some atheists that he was atheist. It is also abundantly clear, especially in light of that quote, that he believes that God created the universe, and that his mission is to find out how.

You are very sorry, and the quote offered has everything to do with Einstein and creationism.

It is because you have a poor fund of knowledge with regard to the religion which is one and the only gateway to spirituality, that you don't understand what Einstein is "actually" saying. Everything you say regarding religion and/or spirituality is covered with the same mis-judgment and illusory perception as your understanding of Einsteins quote. It is little wonder you take issue with this quote, because it reveals a side to that you would rather be kept concealed.

Jan Ardena.

 

The quote shows nothing of the kind.

 

this is a good thread as it saying just becasue you are religious it diesn;t mean you reject science which is very true. however the list you gave, most weren;t actually practiscing Christians they just were Christian by name.

also, Christians in the past (and dont say that this was becasue it was ancient times, becasue at these times people were MOST RELIGIOUS) they used to burn alive people who said anything remotely scientific. an example is people who thought there were other planets out there or that the stars were actually tangible.

 

Jan, have you read Robert Bellah's work? "Religious Evolution" is a often cited work that describes 5 stages of religious development that offers a good perspective on the structure and characteristics of various forms of religion.

If you'd like it, PM me.

Bellah, Robert (1964). "Religious Evolution," American Sociological Review. Vol 29, pp. 358-374.

 

Well, I responded to your one quote with ample followup quotes that show the true nature of Einstein's belief. I even quoted Einstein's refutation of lies that were often told about him (i.e., that he had renounced atheism and converted to theism). I've read several biographies of Einstein as well as many of his own writings and the quote you chose is an anomaly - not the defining quote of his life (as he never repeated it later in life, to my knowledge).

I urge you to read Einstein's writing or any decent biography. If you want me to give you the context of your Jesus quote, allow me:


The quote in question comes from a 1929 interview with George Sylvester Viereck. Einstein was schooled in both Catholic and Jewish traditions and developed a deep respect for both of them. His religious fervor changed, however, when he discovered science. Einstein himself sums up the change in this quote:

The following is an excerpt Albert Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle and Chicago, Illinois, 1979. These paragraphs appear on pp 3 & 5.

When I was a fairly precocious young man I became thoroughly impressed with the futility of the hopes and strivings that chase most men restlessly through life. Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase, which in those years was much more carefully covered up by hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today. By the mere existence of his stomach everyone was condemned to participate in that chase. The stomach might well be satisfied by such participation, but not man insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.

As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came - though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections. It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the "merely personal," from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it. ​

Your selected quote comes from a very idealistic period in Einstein's life when, indeed, he entertained several religious traditions and found inspiration in a number of denominations. That is not, however, the whole picture.

As is the case with many people, Einstein's religious opinions underwent an evolution throughout his life. The Jesus quote came prior to the last 25 years of his life, when much of this change took place. If you want an accurate view of Einstein's changing ideas about religion, just track his quotes from the 1920s through his death in 1955. Here is a very telling one from "A Talk with Einstein":

It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished. ​

Here, in a 1950 letter (five years before his death), Einstein explained his position as agnostic:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. ​

In fact, Einstein's last wish was that he NOT be buried according to any religious tradition. So, it is not correct to assume Einstein's belief in Jesus or the gospels or even in a personal God based on one relatively early quote. Later in life, Einstein described his early beliefs as the product of "childish" thinking and made it abundantly clear that he no longer identified with the stories of the Bible, but instead described God in terms of a cosmic, universal wonder.

You can go ahead and cast the Christian shadow over Einstein's entire life based on selective early quotes, but then you might as well go ahead and quote Siddartha Gautama when he was living in luxury before he left and became the Buddha.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

Then please show me where that quote indicates a belief in God.

Then please tell me what your point is.

Not when you put the quotation back into context. The question to which he was replying was whether he believed in a historical Jesus. Einstein's reply is that yes, he does.

Personally, I feel much the same way. I do believe that there was a real person that fit much of the character described in the NT. I also believe that these accounts have been altered to fit the myths that have grown around the persona. This is common, if not ubiquitous, of powerful historical personages. For instance, Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake" and George Washington never cut down his father's cherry tree.

Einstein stated this precisely in another interview, "It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."

When questioned about God specifically, Einstein was somewhat aloof but he did specify several things:

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God."

"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."

"Why do you write to me "God should punish the English"? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."

These, as opposed to your previous quote, are rather specific. To Einstein, God is simply the aspect of being that science reveals, the complexity of the Universe. God does not make demands, take interest, or interfere in human events; he does not sit in judgment or proscribe morality. Einstein's God does not even have a will. An active, personal God to Einstein is impossible, his behavior inexcusable. Finally we can see that he simply found no use for most conceptions of God, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."

~Raithere

 

Yes, Einstein said that the story of Jesus was not a myth.
That does not mean he was a Christian.

Einstein stated on numerous occassions that he was not a believer in a personal God.
Ergo, Einstein was not a Christian.

 

Ignoring the inaccuracies of the original post the saddest commentary about this is that as of this morning on national news, (9) states currently are considering state laws that can cause a teacher to be fired if she/he refuses to teach "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to "Evolution".

They are getting away with it by not claiming the intelligent designer was God, hence it no longer violates the seperation of church and state.

There needs to be a out cry by logical and scientific minds against this trend.

 

No...

There needs to be a resurgence in Nordic worship.

Let the blood of the Abrahamic slave-race be spilt on the Altars of Woden!

 

Jan

To what extent?
To the extent where the Anglican church had to change the 25th of December to Jesus' birth date because they couldn't stop people from celebrating the pagan festival which was the original holiday. I have studied history (different centuries and periods) and I find it ridiculous that you would so freely question the fact that the overwhelming majority of people all throughout time believed in some form of religion (christianity dominating the 'western european' countries for the last 1500 years or so). The small amount of atheists we see now are grouped under this term because we share one similar point of view- but we are hardly unified and are only noticeable now because we can speak freely and not be persecuted for our views (though I dispute that statement).

Different peoples understanding of the same thing. In all communities you will find diversions.
This leads on from what I was saying above. My point about the different sects of christianity; people interpreted what they believed was ultimately the truth- people interpreted the bible differently (hello different sects) but they never questioned the bible itself, or the truth it laid out. The bible was it. Whether the bible was the real mccoy wasn't something people sat down and discussed, it was the beginning and end word.

People were able to come to different interpretations over what they thought they knew, but the conclusion that a god existed was probably believed by the majority.

And probably not. There is no way of telling is there?
Where do you think all the sects of Christianity came from? That is my logic right there. People interpreted but didn't question. They believed so the idea perpetuated, just in a slightly different form.

It s easy to see why people would think the world was flat, but we now know it isn't. What's your point?
I disagree with you; the gentle curve is quite obvious to the naked eye at sea level and even more obvious at a height. My point was everyone believed this point blindly until one fellow investigated it and found the belief to be completely false. He was then thrown in gaol by the church and condemned at large until time and further discoveries proved him right. This leads on why I think you're statement here is so loose...
So you know for sure that no-one questioned creationism, everybody just conformed to the governments/churches wishes? Because this is the standard of evidence you would need to give credence to your point, otherwise i can only accept it as your opinion which i do not currently agree with.
People just believed in the idea of a flat earth. Likewise people just believed in creationism; it has only been questioned recently because we have developed a set of theories that are based in this world and universe- they aren't close to a made up story that bears no resemblance to the truth of what is around us (bible).

By that logic, in 6000 years time, we'll be seen as backward
If society and human knowledge keeps developing of course we will. In ten, fifty or a hundred years the same statement will apply. I'm trying to show you why religion is stupid, or perhaps more appropriately, why a belief in religion is stupid. It is out moded. It is completely farcical. Something much better is taking its place and it is commonly called science.

Religion is a guide in how to become self-realised, how to use your human potential the best way you can.
I can see how the crusades were reaching our human potential. I can see how polygamy is reaching is self-realising. I can see how blowing oneself up is reaching potential. I can see how allowing the main patriarchal voice perpetuate is furthering women's causes. Yep, I see it all, and I've stopped because people don't like it when someone goes on and on.

In fact some of those laws are still part of the foundation of some societies, and form part of the moral basis of most people throughout the world, regardless of whether they are religious or not.
Yeah, it's played an important roll, but it is time again we grow with our understanding of what's around us. In fact, it is the best time to move on because we can change our thinking and therefore our future for the better (born again's are going to be the end of us).

The logical fallacies are deafning. But i take your point.
Please explain to me the logical fallacies because I don't see them nor are they deafening to me either.

First you disagree then you agree.

This helps the masses in general, keep some kind of order
I was meaning the fact that you refer to the masses where before you said the masses were quite open to question explicitly what they believed. I wouldn't bother answering this as I got my lines of thought crossed.

Religion was hegemony.

Not religion itself, but how it was used.
May I ask what the difference is? And if we conclude that god is divine and omniscient and he has laid it all out in the bible he is hegemonic by definition.

The thought of something better is seductive.

The first book in genisis teaches that
I was describing why everyone believed in christianity or in the middle ages (western europe where it dominated of course). Heaven was quite literally thought of as a warm place where everyone always had food. It also existed just beyond the silver lining of the clouds. My how time/knowledge has changed our perspective. Once again why I see religion as such a fallacy.

Evolution is prominent in society and as such should be taught in schools. But as i stated before, it should be made clear that it is not a fact, but a theory.
No, I'm sorry. Evolution/natural selection is not theory it is fact. It is fully open to explore and is evident on this world. It helps explain the way we are, why we react to things the way we do. I feel sorry for the fool that disbelieves in evolution/natural selection.

And finally, going back to something you said,
My interest is religion, not institutionalised religion. If that is what you term as religion, then you can count me an atheist.
Whatever your belief of religion is, all forms of religion stem from institutionalised religion. You could say all your beliefs are interpreted from the bible, but the bible is an institution in itself. Whatever you believe, if it is derived from the bible or qu'ran (I'm sorry, I should know how to spell qu'ran but I don't) or some other holy book or text then I say to bad. None of them align with what is around us, to me that would make them almost irrelevant and it does. Maybe when I'm old and frail I might pray to some god but it won't be one associated with any of the texts that exist on this earth which frequently make it look more retarded than your average George W Bush (I don't actually think he's really dumb, but I'm playing on a stereotype for all those who would defend him till the cows come home). That is if gene therapy hasn't come to a point where we might perpetuate indefinitely, that would be sweet.

 

Apologies if another post appears as well as this in reply to your post. But i tried posting one 2 or 3 times, and it hasn't manifested. So they may all come at once.

Raithere,

Then please show me where that quote indicates a belief in God.

I cannot believe you are asking this question. All of the quote indicates a belief in God.

Then please tell me what your point is.

Jesus never taliked of a personal (to him) God, every living being (including satan) could asociate with God, if they came up to scratch. A personal god is more like the concept of God, Proud Muslim or Jenyar has, where God only operates within a type of community (Christian/Muslim) and every thing else goes to hell, unless they comply.
A personal god is something one either makes up, or try to design God to fit into their likeness.

Not when you put the quotation back into context. The question to which he was replying was whether he believed in a historical Jesus. Einstein's reply is that yes, he does.

That is such a weak answer. There is only one character of Jesus, and that is his devotion to God.

Personally, I feel much the same way. I do believe that there was a real person that fit much of the character described in the NT. I also believe that these accounts have been altered to fit the myths that have grown around the persona.

So when you read the gospels, you feel the personality of Jesus coming through every page? What aspect of Jesus' personality, depicted in the gospels, move you in that way? And what is the myth that was dispelled by Einstein in his quote? Do you dispell it also?

This is common, if not ubiquitous, of powerful historical personages. For instance, Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake" and George Washington never cut down his father's cherry tree.

Well, it is interesting. What kind of a person do you think Jesus was then?

Einstein stated this precisely in another interview, "It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."

What else is poetry and embellishment for, if not to describe the highest high. It is the only fitting way to describe such magnificent personalities.

When questioned about God specifically, Einstein was somewhat aloof but he did specify several things:

That quote is pretty explicit though, and does strongly indicate a belief in God. Not a belief in Christianity, but definately in God. And if you are really honest with yourself, you'd stop pussy-footing around and acknowledge that fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Albert Einstein had a profound belief in a being, that he could not detect, in any capacity, through his work. And yet he was a brilliant scientist, sometimes referred to as the father of modern-science. A contradiction.....i think NOT!!!!

These, as opposed to your previous quote, are rather specific. To Einstein, God is simply the aspect of being that science reveals, the complexity of the Universe.

Either you are brainwashed, or you are a liar. And i don't mean that as an insult, but an observation.

God does not make demands, take interest, or interfere in human events; he does not sit in judgment or proscribe morality.

God is a spiritual being, humans are material. God's interest in life is the life principle, the soul or spirit. Our day to day events are controlled by nature in accordance with our individual intelligence. If we are bad, then by the laws of nature, we are forced to correct the inbalance. Nature is answerable to God, and operates under His will. Nature has laws, and when these laws are transgressed to the point of Natures unrest, God will intervene and put things right again. He may come Himself, or He may empower one of His asociates, no matter what, law is restored for some time again.

Einstein's God does not even have a will.

No? Then what makes it an “infinitely, superior spirit”, how is it able to reveal itself to our finite, understanding.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

An active, personal God to Einstein is impossible, his behavior inexcusable.

You don’t listen do you?
You have something in your head and whoosh..... off you go.

Finally we can see that he simply found no use for most conceptions of God, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."

Thank God for Albert Einstein.

Jan Ardena.

 

atheroy

I have studied history (different centuries and periods) and I find it ridiculous that you would so freely question the fact that the overwhelming majority of people all throughout time believed in some form of religion (christianity dominating the 'western european' countries for the last 1500 years or so).

Because religion is a natural part of life and to deny it, is folly.

The small amount of atheists we see now are grouped under this term because we share one similar point of view- but we are hardly unified and are only noticeable now because we can speak freely and not be persecuted for our views (though I dispute that statement).

You term atheist the modern definition, which says if you believe in God but act like you don't believe in God, you are a theist. There is something profoundly wrong with that concept. Somehow or other you can believe something, act totally contrary, and still be seen as believing.

This leads on from what I was saying above. My point about the different sects of christianity; people interpreted what they believed was ultimately the truth- people interpreted the bible differently (hello different sects) but they never questioned the bible itself, or the truth it laid out. The bible was it. Whether the bible was the real mccoy wasn't something people sat down and discussed, it was the beginning and end word.

I've read books from people 50/80 years ago, where they have described the bible, Jesus and God, and they are so intelligent and thoughtful. Their ideas and understandings are extremely clever, insightful, broadminded and profound. I think they outshine some of todays authors, who have everything at their fingertips.

That is my logic right there. People interpreted but didn't question. They believed so the idea perpetuated, just in a slightly different form.

That is terribly arrogant of you, and the disease has spread like wild-fire on these forums.

It s easy to see why people would think the world was flat, but we now know it isn't. What's your point?

My point was everyone believed this point blindly until one fellow investigated it and found the belief to be completely false.

Thank God for this fellow.

He was then thrown in gaol by the church and condemned at large until time and further discoveries proved him right. This leads on why I think you're statement here is so loose...

The church is not religion, it is not even based on religion, but on ritual.

People just believed in the idea of a flat earth.

So what? Most people now don't.

Likewise people just believed in creationism;

Creation is far more logincal than "it came out of nothing", in fact that sounds obsurd.

it has only been questioned recently because we have developed a set of theories that are based in this world and universe- they aren't close to a made up story that bears no resemblance to the truth of what is around us (bible).

You don't know that the stories are made up, it is only your opinion. And how do you know that the theory of evolution wasn't made up to act as a challenge to creationism, with an intention to divert simple people from the truth?

If society and human knowledge keeps developing of course we will. In ten, fifty or a hundred years the same statement will apply. I'm trying to show you why religion is stupid, or perhaps more appropriately, why a belief in religion is stupid. It is out moded. It is completely farcical. Something much better is taking its place and it is commonly called science.

That is your opinion.

Yeah, it's played an important roll, but it is time again we grow with our understanding of what's around us.

Are you saying we don't understand what's around us? Could you give an example of wht we don't understand.

In fact, it is the best time to move on because we can change our thinking and therefore our future for the better (born again's are going to be the end of us).

How so?

Jan Ardena.

 

Jan, this is why I love you. We're discussing the same subject matter in the same language yet the conceptions we are attempting to describe are so different it's like we're speaking different languages. Thank you for keeping this fact fresh in my mind.

Believing that Jesus existed as a real person is not the same thing as believing everything he said was correct or that all the stories told about him are true.

"Personal God" is typically taken to mean a God that involves himself with persons. That is for some reason concerned with what people do. Not exclusivity.

My opinion differs. In fact, of the things he talked about God is the least important IMO. Jesus didn't really say anything new about God. The important things were about Man.

I wouldn't say every page, I find some distinct differences between the various gospels and I believe you can simply throw out the Pauline testimony. But yes, I do perceive an underlying identity and philosophy. Sort of like when I read the Declaration if Independence or the Constitution.

A moral revolutionary. He was angered with people abiding by the letter of the law while simultaneously ignoring the spirit that he believed they were given in.

Regardless, poetic embellishment is not the literal truth, it's an emotional truth. While I'm happy to work within such a paradigm it doesn't say much about the actual existence of what is described.

Again, I will point out that believing that Jesus existed does not mean one must believe that everything he said was true.

No, what he said was that there was an order or harmony that exists which reveals itself in the world but is beyond comprehension. That's not the same thing as being undetectable.

Where did I say it was a contradiction?

Read more carefully this time:

"It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being." - Einstein

This is what you believe, it is not what Einstein said.

Yes, I believe I understand what Einstein was getting at. I suggest you re-read the quotes of his that I posted earlier.

No, I'm fine but you seem to need to read more thoroughly. I'll post the quote again:

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him." - Einstein

Amen.

~Raithere

 

1Dude:

You keep refereeing to these scientists as having a 'Christian faith,' but simply being a Christian does not make one a creationist. Generally 'creationist' is a label implying that one doesn't believe in evolution. There are many Christians who are not creationists. Whether or not the universe was created by a supernatural deity is a question the science can't answer, as any serious scientist would tell you.

 

Jan,

What, no answer to my post?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I feel slighted.

I suppose it is more convenient to ignore little things like biographies and blaze right through, defining people by isolated, out-of-context quotes. It certainly saves a lot of time and reading.

By the way, here's a quote from Adolf Hitler:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
[to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]​

I guess from that one quote, I can extrapolate that Hitler was a Bible-believing, born again, pro-life creationist, huh? Wow, you're right. Context really is a drag. Hey, I hear Fox News is looking for a new correspondent. You would do well, I think.

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

 

Jan

Because religion is a natural part of life and to deny it, is folly.
I disagree with you. How can you say religion is a natural part of life? I grew up without it and can say I don't or didn't feel unnatural at all growing up without out it. Nothing was missing in my life, I was and am happy. I was consistently top in my class and year throughout college, I never was lacking in friends. For me to have missed out on something oh so natural why have I done so well in life to date?
And denying it because it is based off pumped up stories and myths that have no relevance to the world around us seems a fairly sensible thing to do, especially when it is causing societies around the world to disregard what we're doing to others and the world itself.
Why don't you try answering what I've written?

You term atheist the modern definition, which says if you believe in God but act like you don't believe in God, you are a theist. There is something profoundly wrong with that concept. Somehow or other you can believe something, act totally contrary, and still be seen as believing.
See, this is why you're wrong. You think I make arrogant assumptions, this is you're definition of what all atheists think. You are clearly not an atheist so how can you make that statement of what I or another atheist thinks? It goes back to my trying to make it clear to you that grouping atheists under one term because of one similarly held belief is like ignoring all the sects of christianity and simply unifying them as christian, all of them sharing exactly the same beliefs. It's a flawed analogy but close enough.

I've read books from people 50/80 years ago, where they have described the bible, Jesus and God, and they are so intelligent and thoughtful. Their ideas and understandings are extremely clever, insightful, broadminded and profound. I think they outshine some of todays authors, who have everything at their fingertips.
You do realise that 50 to 80 years ago is very recent, and why would their insights be any less perceptive to those of today?
I'm taking about the middle ages where the nobility and some of the middle class were literate. That is a profoundly small percentage of any population throughout europe (and this was the norm up until very recently). They would have been the only ones to be in a position to question what the bible and their faith was about because they were the only ones who knew explicitly what it was about. The lower class (which by far was the majority) were the people who believed blindly. Hell they went to sermons spoken in latin, they didn't understand, they didn't question, they just believed. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

That is terribly arrogant of you, and the disease has spread like wild-fire on these forums.
If I am guilty of anything it is trying to put forward a legitimate argument on subject matter of which I actually know something about. I was stating that that is how different sects came to existence by my understanding. The bible became widely available (relatively) in the 17th century; people interpreted what they believed and found that their interpretations of what they read in the bible did not align with that of either the roman catholic church or the anglican church. An explosion of sects then followed. Creationism wasn't questioned; creationism was explicitly laid out by the bible. The bible was the source of everyone's and every sects' belief. Do I need to spell it out any further?
And if you find anything terribly arrogant in what I've said maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror some time. This is history I have studied, I'm doing the next logical human step and am interpreting it. I find your assumptions arrogant because I don't see where you are basing any of your theories from fact. Don't you bloody well call me arrogant, I'm riled by that comment to the extreme.

Thank God for this fellow.
So what? Most people now don't.
I was trying to show you why my assumption (and it's not merely an assumption) that everyone believed in creationism and religion wasn't questioned. People believed that the earth was flat for god's sake. I am showing you a parallel to people's belief of creationism. It's based off nothing observed. Like the idea the earth was flat. I can't break this down for you any further.

Creation is far more logincal than "it came out of nothing", in fact that sounds obsurd.
Yes, according to all biological laws of this universe, creationism is in fact more logical

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That' my whole point. Such stories aren't based in our universe, nor are they based off anything that has ever remotely occurred in this universe. That is my problem with the bible. That is my problem with people's belief in the bible which in turn makes them believe evolution/natural selection doesn't happen when it obviously does. Speciation is visible within any continent of the world and the ocean. That is evolution/natural selection. You just can't deny it when it is so bloody plain to see to anyone who isn't blinded by their belief in the supernatural (ie religion).

And how do you know that the theory of evolution wasn't made up to act as a challenge to creationism, with an intention to divert simple people from the truth?
Because evolution/natural selection was basically created unknowingly by Mendel, a monk from the list in this thread if I'm not mistaken. It's there to for all to see with open minds.

That is your opinion.
So you don't think our dress sense in the 80's and early 90's was backwards? You don't think our knowledge has vastly improved over the last hundred years to show sufficiently that what we perceived a hundred years ago was backwards? You don't think that what we know now makes knowledge from the very first century AD seem simple in comparison?

Are you saying we don't understand what's around us? Could you give an example of wht we don't understand.
Gee, I don't know? How about you think of everything you don't understand? About the universe. About the earth. About the organisms around us. About the old saying; the more we learn the more we realise the less we know (that's from memory and not perfect). What we don't understand? More like where to start?

How so?
I reckon religion instils a here and now selfishness into people, as well as a righteousness in ones actions that is undeserved; George W Bush anyone? That was my born again comment. Some religious folk obviously not, but christianity is basically an end of the world religion. It focuses people on the wrong thing. We should all be looking to preserve this planet for generations to come; hundreds of millions of dollars should be being spent on finding a different source of power other than crude oil and its derivatives. But it's not. People, instead of getting all angsty about other people, should be helping one another. Religion generally doesn't help this IMO.

I'm surprised you didn't respond to this,
Religion is a guide in how to become self-realised, how to use your human potential the best way you can.

I can see how the crusades were reaching our human potential. I can see how polygamy is self-realising. I can see how blowing oneself up is reaching ones potential. I can see how allowing the main patriarchal voice perpetuate is furthering women's causes. Yep, I see it all, and I've stopped because people don't like it when someone goes on and on.
But not that surprised.

a